As stated in the article, the best possible solution for preventing piracy in Somalia would be to provide to the pirates a better way of life. However, due to political unrest that seems very unlikely. So it seems that the best way to clean up the waters in the region around Somalia would be for Western nations to invest in the judicial systems of neighboring states such as Kenya; in order for the pirates to face jail time. This seems like a better solution than investing man power and money through naval enforcement, which only seems to be spreading the piracy out.

The pirating is an issue with Somalia not having had a functioning government since 1991. The UN attempted to intervene - and failed in 1995. Since then, nothing has really been happening. These pirates have full reign over the coastline of the country and their attacks have become more and more daring - their attacks have moved further and further away from the coastline, signifying that the pirates have acquired better equipment as well as larger & faster ships.

There are three problems in East African waters:
1. Piracy
2. Overfishing from non-Somali vessels
3. Toxic waste dumping

The current solution for piracy:
1. Going real fast/evasive maneuvers
2. Various nonviolent defenses, from acoustic weapons to firehoses and barbed wire.
3. Armed guards on board.
4. Patrols by various navies with various degrees of cooperation and various policies.

The current solution for foreign fishing and toxic waste dumping:
Nothing that I know of.

Some interesting solutions have been offered on this thread, but nothing that would address all three problem. And addressing all three problems would be politically effective--it would be seen in the third world as much more even-handed. It would also be just, for what that's worth.

My solution would address all three problems and solve some additional challenges as well.

It is building and deploying a UAV carrier task force. A UAV carrier would be about the size and capabilities of an assault carrier/helicopter carrier. These aren't exactly tiny but they are a less than half the size of a supercarrier. I spent five hours touring such a carrier a few months ago, and I'm sure it would serve the purpose perfectly after conversion from carrying choppers and Harriers to carrying UAVs (plus a few choppers).

The purpose would be to patrol the coastline from which the pirate motherships and skiffs are setting out into an area the size of Europe. Navy destroyers can't do that cost-effectively. It would take hundreds, if not thousands. UAVs can do patrols like that on teacups of fuel, at an altitude from which they can't be seen or heard.

You have four types of vessels involved:
1. Pirate skiffs
2. Pirate motherships (usually stolen)
3. Pirate motherships with captured crews on board.
4. Captured freighters the pirates are taking back to their port.

Of course UAVs can't exactly capture vessels. Nor can they always tell an innocent fishing trawler from a pirate mothership until it goes into action--usually at night--much less whether a pirate mothership has a captured crew on board.

But UAVs can follow ships for long periods. Once they're revealed at pirate vessels, the hunter UAV's info is relayed to a killer UAV--the kind we use to kill terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen. It would come in and sink any pirate skiffs, then disable the mothership by blowing off its rudder/prop assembly.

Then the UAV carrier could coordinate with a Coast Guard-type vessel to go there and board the mothership. If the pirates surrender peacefully, they could be dropped off at the nearest coastline. If they put up a fight they would be killed on the spot. The ship would be towed to a friendly port and either sold as salvage or repatriated to its legitimate owners after paying cost of recovery.

Currently all our armed forces are rapidly developing and deploying many kinds of UAVs. UAV carriers would be extraordinarily useful and relatively cheap. Using them to solve this problem would also help us develop and refine tactics for using them.

I feel for shipping companies in this day and age the econemy in a bad state making cut backs takeing risks with peoples lives,paying out ransom money to thease idiots .Paying huge amounts of money on security which could be used for something else. I wont put security companies down either there trying to run a buisiness as well. What i would like to bring up is a new stratergy ive checked international laws and there nothing ilegall about it. Cs gas granades ,rubber bulletts and stun granades are a not classed as high volocity weapons and if used right could prove to be verry affective. Im ex millitary ive trained with these weapons in mock exercises and conflict. Now imagine being one of these pirates you board the ship only to be met by stun granades cs gas ,and then rubber bulletts plied in to you at aggressive speed . these weapons are cheap as well .If any one has experianced these weapons the cs gas burns your throat makes your nose run and feels like a thousand wasps stinging you . then you get hit by a stun granade your disorientatd then a team fires a barrag of rubber bullitts into you. so to sum it up your disorientated ,in pain and gagging.And then after that a bunch of guys steam in on you and pin you down hood over your face and plasticuffs on you till the authorities turn up.To close yep a 7.62 round would do it or a 5.56 round but theres only certain amount of places you,r allowed to carry them.

This is the best idea I came up with after five minutes: generally the pirate vessels are spotted when they're still many minutes away. That's enough time for the defending ship to launch a small UAV and drop a grenade on them. Shouldn't be too expensive a solution, and extra manpower isn't required, just a few hours of extra training. If the pirates want to defend against such attacks, they'll have to use heavier boats, which takes away some of their advantages. They could try firing at the UAV with small arms, but it wouldn't be easy to hit a small rapidly moving object from a skiff moving at 25 knots.

Instead of building a "citadel" on-board, why not evacuate the crew?
Vessels sailing in the area could be equipped with a fast-enough small speedboat, that crews could use to escape the vessel upon noticing a piracy threat. Crews could also temporarily impair the vessel's ability to sail before escaping (perhaps by taking some vital piece of equipment with them).
An impaired vessel with no crew on it would be useless to the pirates, and at any case it can easily be reclaimed by the naval patrols, just after they rescue the escapee crew.
Could this idea work in practice? And if so, are the legal issues involved unsolvable?

"Even when a ship succeeds in capturing pirates, both sides know ... the prisoners will probably be quickly released. Naval forces have let between 500 and 700 pirates go over the last three years, mostly ensuring they have enough fuel and other supplies to get home and, on more than one occasion, helping with engine repairs. Some pirates have been arrested several times."

Isn't this exactly the problem - pirates are treated much too lightly? The Korean approach seems much more effective: punish those caught in the act severely!

Build ships with determents engineered in. I like the idea of being able to direct super heated steam to outlets on ship side. When pirates start climbing aboard direct steam to required outlet area burns pirates they fall into ocean drown.Others have suggested that engine exhaust gases rather than steam be used.Pirates have a risk less operation start putting risk into their operations

It is impossible in 5000 characters to address in any detail the dilemmas created by the Somali pirates who continue to run rings around international law and the best efforts of the very limited naval presence in the area. For the military their hands are tied by the fact that they are engaged in a law enforcement operation and not a war but it is right that very little political will exists to prosecute the pirates and some 1400 were simply caught and released during last year. Recent changes of law in places like France may see a more general trend to improving on this.

For the ship owner there is a danger but actually the odds in actually being caught remain low. The idea that shipping can be stopped from using the Gulf of Aden is fanciful I am afraid. The price they and the crew pay when they are caught is significant.

Armed guards remains the schism in the industry. Those providing them will say that no vessel so protected has been hijacked. Ships with armed guards have been attacked and the use by the pirates of other hijacked commercial ships as mother ships where they can out number a security team by a factor of 10 raises the stakes again. It is also a fact that certain flag states do not allow arms on their ships. 20,000 ships a year transit the Gulf it is simply not possible to arm them all and many ship owners believe (not unreasonably) that the task of keeping the sea lanes open is one that rests with the navy.

“Sawaariiq nin taabiyo nin toori biri heysta, ninba tuu awoodoba dil wey isugu tagayaane” this Somali poem passage roughly translates “One armed with big noisy rocket and the one armed with a small knife, whatever the tool, they both can kill if they want to” A Somali poet sent a message to colonialists after they occupied Somali territories, extorted money from Somalis, looted Somali resources and threatened Somalis with violence. But this passage rhymes in Somali much better and has a deeper meaning .

If the Koreans, Malaysians, Nato and Indians think they can loot Somali fisheries and threaten who stands their way with violence. Then time will tell who will feel the heat first.

Having just returned from two international conferences on piracy the industry has indeed moved on from many of the points highlighted in this article.
BMP3 (the latest edition of Best Management Practice) is seen as a minimum level of protection for ships, even then vessels have been taken which have complied with BMP3.
The use of military support is mired in logistical issues not least of which are the fact that they cannot be everywhere is a large and growing danger area. Some flag states also have a problem with military personnel from other nations on their vessels.
Citadels have had some success but pirates are now starting to carry the tools needed to gain entry into them.
Unfortunately the only statistic that remains a constant is that no vessel has been taken that has been protected by armed guards and there would seem to be a reluctant acceptance of this fact across the industry. Although the article talks of operators/charterers calculating the risks and still choosing to cross the danger area this is becoming increasingly untenable as crews are beginning to refuse to man ship that are not protected.
With c.90% of trade travelling by ship the only avenue open it would seem is the use of armed guards. It must be stressed that this is a deterrent and does not necessarily have to mean an escalation. Clear Rules Of Engagement (or Rules For The Use Of Force) should be defined and adhered to. The Master should remain in charge of his vessel at all times.
Pirates are businessmen. They have a successful business model, which is in danger of being copied in other regions/waters. They are, however, not eager to suffer harm and so are not keen to engage with a vessel that does have armed protection.
It is perhaps not the option that the industry would like but if we concentrate on the plight of the seafarers that are increasingly being held then perhaps it is the only option that will ensure them safe passage?

Quote "The most encouraging development has been the spread of “best management practices” for deterring piracy..." Unquote
I come from the shipping industry and I see nothing encouraging with ships and their crews having the full burden to fend off RPG-armed-pirates with high-pressure-water...

Armed guards don't seem like a solution as it is extra cost on an already depressed Shipping market and their use would escalate matters to new heights...

No-action (by the west) in this case seems like a support to piracy, there's nothing to deter piracy and more will follow suit.

NATO/EU should have a hard line policy like India and Russia (and now Korea?) whereby with their actions they proclaim that if anyone "pirates" a ship with their respective flags they will be dealt with accordingly.

Also apart from the political point of view, there's that of the human factor, can you imagine going to work everyday and every other day being at gunpoint?

A simple yet inelegant solution unfortunately as it does not take account of:
Jurisdictions in Territorial zone waters or in claimed economic zone waters?
Fishermen both local and international?
The primacy of the Law of the Seas which coincidently is bound only to signatories,
.....and lastly the small fact that the UN does not actually have jurisdiction over international waters but only over member states.

There is already a legal precedent of some 300 years standing regarding piracy...hostis humani (hostile to humanity or enemy of humanity) which is the well regarded universal authority under which any individual can be arrested and tried by any state for an act of piracy, not only aggrieved parties to the act itself.

Similar to 'crimes against humanity' piracy is expected to be dealt with by any responsible state regardless of the geographical point of the crime as all states are afforded universal jurisdiction under hostis hunami.

The legal precedents already exist.
All that is missing is the political will to act.

Recognise Somaliland and Punt as independent African countries.
In this way you create speaking partners with whom you can agree problem solving measures. (not sure what to do with Somalia since this area is still in a civil war and will be excluded from my solutions).

Help the people on the coast to make a decent living (e.g. prohibit fishing in teretorial waters) Help to set up industries and infrastructure, and a legal and education system, train their armies, coast guards and police forces.

Stop the laudry of hostage money, I mean how difficult can it be to stop this strange money flow from a dirt poor area?

A rather simple solution suggests itself. The UN could declare the entire affected ocean area a restricted zone where only ships that have registered a sailing plan are permitted to sail. Any other ship is liable to confiscation. This would have no effect on legitimate shipping while it would allow the naval presence to "arrest" unregistered boats without any need to prove criminal intent or action. No action would be taken against the pirates other then the loss of their boats avoiding the issues of trial, imprisonment and asylum. Satellite technology would allow the navies to make the probability of arrest of any pirate boat over 50% which would kill the pirate industry stone dead.

It must be deeply unfashionable to mention it, but the Romans had problems with rampant piracy in the Med until they took decisive steps to end the problem. The steps required did not involve judicial procedures or the application of soft force. The Romans correctly reasoned that a massive escalation of consequential costs would deter the vast majority of men from pursuing piracy as a job. Our comfortable modern world would not wish to see mass executions and crucifixions, but in lieu of such steps it is highly improbable that piracy will end anytime soon, no matter what the developed nations talk about in a well-meaning way.

One wonders why most of the parties, countries and organizations who are the main stake holders are blind to the facts of piracy seen by the majority of Somalis. Many including the recent UN report on Somali Piracy conclude that the source and base of all piracy activities originate in the Puntland region of Somalia. Not only that, the area is the safe haven which protects and shelters both the pirates and their captured loot "which sadly includes also fellow humans". Despite this, the rest of the world, is not only intentionally-blind to this, but often provide both financial and political support to the perpetrators of these crimes; namely the self-appointed ruling clique in Puntland. Wouldn't such an appeasing policy encourage others in the region to see piracy as both an illegitimate and a world-approved incentive for additional revenue. Why the world is avoiding to see Puntalnd as the lair of all Somali pirates? Who is benefiting from keeping things as they are, aside from the pirates and their masters in Puntland?

You only lightly touch on the UN Special Adviser on Piracy's recommendations. As 9 out of every 10 pirates are released by capturing forces, Tribunals in Puntland, Somaliland, and Tanzania are part of a more comprehensive solution. http://piracy-law.com/